A former advisor to the Biden administration has claimed that the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, is out of control.

Tim Wu, former special assistant for technology and competition policy to President Joe Biden, made this claim in a July 2 op-ed published in the New York Times. The piece, titled “The First Amendment is Out of Control,” took a “somewhat innovative” route to argue against free speech, according to independent journalist Didi Rankovic.

Wu painstakingly framed the potential abuse of the First Amendment by Big Tech as a concern, citing the latest U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding Texas and Florida laws as an example. Rankovic added that despite the former advisor’s attempt to make his message seem unbiased, his piece actually does the opposite.

The op-ed argues that the First Amendment is an obstacle for the government to protect citizens, ostensibly for being invoked as a tool to restrain censorship. But Rankovic countered: “In the same vein, contrary to the sentiment of this ‘essay,’ the [First Amendment] is there not to protect ‘national security’ – nor does free speech undermine that, in a democracy.”

“When the government colludes with mighty entities like major social platforms, the First Amendment becomes the primary recourse to defend speech now expressed in public square forums forged though the pervasiveness of the internet. This means that the First Amendment, designed to protect citizens from government citizenship, is doing its job,” the independent journalist continued.

Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity’s knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Speak freely without censorship at the new decentralized, blockchain-power Brighteon.io. Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.

According to Rankovic, Wu also expressed dislike over the First Amendment’s use to counter age verification laws that undermine privacy and security, such as California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code.

“Meanwhile, many believe that attacks on this speech-protecting constitutional amendment are what’s actually out of control these days,” Rankovic ultimately remarked. “As has lately become the norm with the First Amendment detractors: This is lots of words, most of them empty, some dramatic, but overall, free speech-unfriendly.”

Ban on TikTok could lead to ban on other “disliked” apps

Rankovic also mentioned the proposed ban on the Chinese video sharing app TikTok, which has been kept at bay the the First Amendment.

“You don’t like TikTok? Let’s just ban it. But the pesky First Amendment stands in the way of that? What Wu ignores here is that the bill that allows banning TikTok is so ambiguous it can be used to get rid of other, for whatever reason, ‘disliked’ apps.” (Related: TikTok ban bill could lead to broader surveillance and censorship by the U.S. government.)

A separate piece on Reclaim The Net by journalist Dan Freith expounded on the repercussions of this ban, noting that “it extends beyond TikTok.” Freith continued that “the existence of other platforms for short-form video content doesn’t negate the issue of the government eliminating a speech platform.”

“ByteDance or TikTok-operated websites, desktop apps, mobile apps or VR [virtual reality] apps automatically fall under both definitions, but that doesn’t mean that those definitions could be applied to other apps or websites in the future. Additionally, the scope widens to potentially include almost any social or content-sharing platform, desktop app, mobile app or VR app with over one million monthly active users.”

Freith added that the enforcement of any ban would require the government to convincingly demonstrate that such action is essential for a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive way to achieve that interest. He cited one case in Montana that involved a federal district court stopping a TikTok ban. The decision in the said case was based on the assessment that the ban might not withstand even intermediate scrutiny – highlighting constitutional challenges to such prohibitions.

Visit FirstAmendment.news for more stories like this.

Watch this video about the possibility of the TikTok ban bill being used to censor pro-free speech platforms such as Rumble and Truth Social.

This video is from the Thrivetime Show channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

TikTok ban in many US states is just gas-lighting about spying app “concerns” while every other app and social media platform spies on us 24/7/365.

Mitt Romney admits TikTok ban was about CENSORING pro-Palestine content.

MSNBC openly attacks First Amendment, says free speech leaves American democracy “vulnerable.”

Sources include:

ReclaimTheNet.org 1

ReclaimTheNet.org 2

Brighteon.com